The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1887-05-05
CAVALRY AT NASHVILLE.
Comrades Firing Their Carbines Where There Is
No Tarref

EDITOR NATIONAL TRIBUNE: ! see that
several comrades have been firing away at me
for alleged injustice to Hatch's Division at
Nashville. If the comrades will point out a
single paragraph in my article that will sup
port them in their assertions, / will retract it
at once. Comrade Surby said that Hatch's
Division charged and took forts at Nashville
on Dec. Is. 1864. This statement have never
seen denied. l did not deny it. All that l
have ever tried 10 do was to place that division
somewhere IN Thomas's line where there were
forts TO charge, for there was no fort down the
Granny White pike. This pixies terminus is
ut Granny White Ferry, which is just three
miles below Nashville, and was in our posses
sion all the while. The 9TH Ohio Cav. was
stationed at this ferry several weeks before the
fight at Nashville, and moved from there to its
position on the line on the evening of Dec. IA.
i accept Gen. Cox's statement that Johnson's
Division occupied the Charlotte pike, but deny
that it runs straight south from Nashville. 1t
runs almost due west, and down through the
Cumberland River bottoms. After passing
Granny White Ferry, we continued down
through the fields. the right resting on the
river, the left oil the Charlotte pike, until we
had reached a creek six miles from Nashville;
and when the 18th Ohio charged the battery, as
described in my article two ironclad monitors,
with turrets extending above the banks kept in
line with the 9TH and fired up the creek at a
distance of not moro than 300 yards from the
rebel battery.
Here the river turns north and the Charlotte
pike leaves the river. We followed this pike four
miles farther, and turned TO the left on a mud
road until we reached the Harding pike. i
said in former article that we had fought in
fantry from the start, aud that much of my
statement is corrobOTated by COmrade Wilson
when he said that Johnsons Division fought
Chalmers's Division in that fight. If the COM
radae will a. amino G,an Hno1fG a. Advance and
Retreat from Nashville" they will find that
Chalmers's Division occupied the extreme left
of Hoods line; they will also find that Hood
said that Chalmers's Division was too far away
10 render him auy assistance in the second
days fight and will further find that Chal-
mers's Division retreated on the same roads by
which Johnson's Division advanced, all Of
which goes TO prove my statement was correct.
Now. comrades, if succeed in combining the
Fifth Division TO some part of Thomas's line
where there were forts to take, instead OF ST.
lently permitting them to be placed OH another
part of the line where there were no forts, as
was the fact anywhere near the Granny White
or Charlotte pike or near the Cumberland
River, have / done any injustice to the Fifth
Division? / think not. / knew that il was
Chalmers's Division we were fighting, aud we
were on the Charlotte pike. The History of
the 9TH Ohio Cav" which was written by me
some years ago. says the same thing. and Com
rade Wilson has my thanks for reminding me
of that fact.
Again, if il is true that Chalmerss Division
occupied the extreme left of Hoods line, would
il not also be true that Gen. Johnson's Division
must occupy the right of ThOmas's line in order
to fight Chalmers's-a fact which is admitted
or how will you reconcile it that Hatch's Di-
vision was on the extreme right Of Thomas
line?
Now, the question will arise why did not
Hood erect forts and intrcnch on the left OF his
line? The reason is very obvious. He could
not erect forts or intrench himself within
range of our gunboats, aud he would not in
trench where he would be enfiladed by our
monitors. moments reflection will settle
that point When Gen. Johnson writes his
article on the cavalry fighting at Nashville, as
has been promised us by the Editor you will
| find his statements viii cOrroborate my article
r. G. RANKIN, Captain, 9Th Ohio Cav, Rip
! ley, o.